Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar From: mydog!gcf@hombre.masa.com Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Feminism's ill effects on men? Message-ID: <1990Oct15.210918.7972@ora.com> Date: 15 Oct 90 21:09:18 GMT References: <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> <974@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: O'Reilly and Associates Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 71 Approved: ambar@ora.com Adrienne Regard : >That's not much of a consolation to the poor fellow who wanted to be >an engineer and got competed out of the position. pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke): >Well, if he just got competed out of the position, that's just tough. >If the reason the competition is higher is because women's role has >changed, that's just tough. Actually, no matter what the reason for >the increased competition, it's still just tough. >However, if the reason he didn't get the position is because somebody >has fixed the game, as a result of some sort of idea of compensation >for some sort of perception of statistics, so that he cannot win in >spite of his being able to compete, that's not just tough, it's sexist >and basically wrong. .... I think this approach to the situation is a bit naive. Groups compete for advantage, just as individuals do. Part of the way one gets advantage is getting to write the rules, or at least affect the way they're written. This can be called "fixing the game." In the 1950's, it was widely believed that if Yale, Harvard, and Princeton admitted students purely on the basis of merit, a majority of their student bodies would have been Jewish. For various reasons this was thought undesirable. The rules were adjusted accordingly[1], probably without overt discussion. The universities explained that they were looking for a "diverse, balanced student body of well-rounded men." I'm quoting from memory, but I think I'm about right. The phrases still bring a smile to my face. "So round, so firm, so fully packed...." Now, it would be nice to believe that we could just set all this sort of thing aside, and have some kind of admissions plan based on merit alone. The problem is, no one knows what "merit" is. If we really wanted to level the playing field, we would devise an engineering certification test, and say that anyone who passed it was an engineer, whether they got their knowledge from RPI or the public library. That we do not do this -- "we" meaning those of us who are important -- shows that we do _not_ want a level playing field, that we want to jury-rig the populations of our middle and upper-level hierarchies. Given that condition, and given that out-groups find it very difficult to change the meta- rules (like how come the admissions committee is staffed the way it is, or why there's an admissions committee at all) there's a lot of effort to change the lower-level rules. This effort is sometimes called "affirmative action" or "civil rights" -- or "discrimination" by those whose interests are threatened by the effort. The attempt by an out-group to win a better position for itself can _always_ be called "racist" or "sexist" or "nationalist" because the out-group was _constituted_ by racism or sexism or nationalism -- as practiced by others. Out-groups are involved in a structure of discrimination or prejudice, or they wouldn't be out-groups. There would be no "out." It is silly to require them to be egalitarian when there is no equality. First, they have to find a place to stand; then, they can work out deals with competing groups which can be called "equal" or "fair", meaning the parties involved are about equally dissatisfied with the results. I'm tempted to say this is "just tough" -- that it's the inevitable outcome of a competitive system -- but in fact I'm not much taken with the just-toughness of things. I think we can ask whether things have to be this way. If there's blood in the water, it's best to be a shark; but why is there always blood in the water? However, that's another subject. [1] In my opinion; I have no proof. I draw my conclusions from the peculiarity of the results and the language surrounding them, and many have drawn similar conclusions. -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf